It's my opinion that we can basically commoditize an automated port which will fulfill the needs of the community, and allow the project to, at minimum, continue to release, in a timely fashion, direct ports of the Java Lucene releases...
Meanwhile we can continue the efforts represented in Lucere, Lucille, and Aimee.Net to create an alternative API for Lucene.Net which may or may not include completely re-written code, depending on the specifics. I think both concepts can co-exist in a single project and that this will be the best way to move forward. If you followed the Lucere project, you'll see that my approach with TDD and Contract Driven Design was intended to facilitate just such an arrangement. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > In incubator we can probably rewrite the description of the project - but in > the past we were pushed from doing anything but a straight port becuase the > description of the project was "line by line port" - where a tool makes > sense, and .NET specific contructs are basically avoided becuase that > wouldn't be a line by line port. We talked about using things like Enums but > we were shot down from this idea by someone... > > I agree with you whole heartly about utilizing sharpen and jvm just to port > the code. The Lucere project was the idea of rewriting the java code to .Net, > using standard constructs. I think the goal for the ASF project was to > minimize work needed to be done to upgrade to new java things that come out. > If we purse this direction, then every change needs to be manually ported. > I've already said I think that is do-able once we are on part with the latest > java. > > > ~Prescott Nasser > prescott.nas...@hotmail.com > 650.208.4205 > > > > >> Subject: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org >> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:24:32 -0500 >> From: stema...@brain-bank.com >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> CC: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org >> >> I think it took be 5 "deletes" of this e-mail and complete rewrites to try >> to say this in the best way possible: >> >> First off, Sharpen is a java tool (from the db4o SVN I found) - using >> sharpen to port lucene to .net means that people now have to install a jvm >> on their computers in order to contribute. While this may seem like it makes >> perfect sense in fact it is this type of requirements that scares pure .net >> developers away. You cannot ask someone to install a bunch of tools >> "outside" of their comfort zone in order to create a tool that works in >> their world. Furthermore, it's also saying that now - not only do >> contributors need to know java and have a jvm, but then they also need to >> know sharpen in order to make a c# product. >> >> Gentlemen, I would gladly contribute - I can assure you that I wouldn't be >> the best but I would be happy to lend a hand - but speaking strictly for >> myself I don't see myself learning 2-3 new pieces of technologies when I >> feel that I should just be a good c# programmer to help out. >> >> Would it not make more sense, given the fact that we want to reduce work and >> make a quality product that we become more selective about *what* goes >> through Sharpen and what can be hand-crafted? IE: Do we really need to port >> the Java methods of writing to files and handling Threading? What about WCF? >> >> >> >> Karell Ste-Marie >> C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:46 PM >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Cc: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org >> >> That is exactly what I would suggest. Sharpen looks like a great tool, since >> you can customize it's behaviour. In fact, the only downside is that you >> have to customize it's behaviour which requires a lot of upfront work. >> >> Thanks, >> Troy >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the technology is there - no >> > generic porting tool will be 100%, it will always require pre/post >> > processing. Sharpen is a pretty good generic conversion tool. >> > >> > I agree in that I think we need to focus on a process utilizing a tool >> > such as sharpen and developing the pre/post processing clean up scripts >> > that are specific to Lucene. >> > >> > ~Prescott >
